"Fahrenheit 9/11"In Defense of
Michael Moore
by Walter Lippmann====================================
On August 14, 2004, IKE NAHEM wrote:[Below is an] alternative view of Fahrenheit 9/11
and an
antidote to so much of the knee-jerk praise
that has been so thoroughly
circulated on our list-
serves. I think we should print another point of view
that
will resonate with many, including myself, who
forked over our money and were
caught up in the hype.=====================================

Dear Ike -

Thanks for
your note. When I saw the article you
mention,
I sent the link out on two lists where I post. I thought others should read The Militant's
view.

Some discussion about this can be helpful. So I'm sharing your
note, the article you shared, and some other
materials and links to other articles about Michael Moore's movie. This picture has done more
to generate political discussion than any other in memory since Bowling for
Columbine, all to the good in this information-starved country.

Moore's movie, had it been made by you, me, or by someone else, might have said
more, or expressed itself differently, but then it wouldn't
have been his movie. None of us is Michael
Moore. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the largest-drawing
documentary of all time, quite an achievement, don't you
think?

What makes Michael Moore's work so important is this: he has taken information
which is widely known to activists, and on the Internet, such as Bush's theft of
the Presidency, his close families ties to the Saudi monarchy and so much more,
and found a way to put this information into the hands and minds of MILLIONS OF
PEOPLE. For this we owe him gratitude, though that doesn't mean we can't
discuss, argue or criticize Moore if we don't agree with some of his ideas.

When
discussing works of art, especially political ones which have been so successful, we'd
do better by beginning with something
positive, as other left
critics have done. Starting from that, one
can make whatever comment, criticism or suggestion on the movie that one likes.
That way one can get a hearing from those who've seen and enjoyed the film, and
encourage their further thinking. Others have written to suggest more or different points the movie
could have made, but they start by recognizing something good in it. The
Militant simply trashed the movie, 100%.

The Militant's
unique perspective. The Militant calls Fahrenheit 9/11"a pro-war film"
!?!?
It repeats its peculiar notion that Bush's
elevation to the presidency in November 2000 was NOT illegitimate. They seem to think
its main problem was that Fahrenheit
9/11 wasn't the
cinematic equivalent of The Militant. Then there's the weird suggestion that
Fahrenheit 9/11 is
racist. That poisons
the atmosphere and seems designed to insulate the reader's mind against even going to see it.
The Militant makes Moore's film sound something more like The
Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will. Wasn't there even one single redeeming thing
in it?

Oddly, The Militant, which publishes useful news from and about Cuba
from time to time, didn't mention
how the film was received on the island. Its
first-hand reports from there are always worth reading. The Cubans really
loved it. On this, however, they
seem to be "missing in action..."

Furthermore,
it was shown on television three times, and
introduced by
Ricardo Alarcon, a Cuban leader with considerable experience in and knowledge of
the United States? An entire Mesa Redonda, the daily news
magazine, was devoted to discussing it. It was also seen by audiences in 120 theaters around the island?
Maybe the Cubans missed what The Militant so clearly sees?

(By
the way, and to completely clear: just because Cubans liked Moore's film, doesn't mean anyone
else has to like it. But perhaps a less shrill and condemning tone about
the movie would be better?)

In
addition, Fidel Castro, also an influential Cuban leader, quoted from Michael Moore in his July 26th speech. Fidel
called Michael Moore, Richard Clarke, and Bob Woodward "outstanding Americans"? Did Fidel miss something? Not to worry,
The Militant is read in Cuba, so perhaps they will reconsider on Michael
Moore once they read The Militant's analysis.
You can always hope...

Fidel Castro quoting Michael Moore:

In his book "Stupid
White Men", Michael Moore points out that Bush exhibits obvious symptoms of
not being able to read at an adult level and writes the following as part of an
open letter to Bush:

"1.
George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?

"It
appears to me and many others that, sadly, you may be a functional
illiterate. This is nothing to be ashamed of… Millions of Americans cannot
read and write above a fourth grade level.

"But
let me ask you this: if you have trouble comprehending the complex position
papers you are handed as the Leader of the Mostly-Free World, how can we
entrust something like our nuclear secrets to you?

"All
the signs of illiteracy area there —and apparently no one has challenged
you about them. The first clue was what you named as your favourite
childhood book, "The Very Hungry Caterpillar", you said.

"Unfortunately,
that book wasn’t even published until a year after you graduated from
college."

"One
thing is clear to everyone —you can’t speak the English language in
sentences we can comprehend.

"If
you are going to be Commander-in-Chief, you have to be able to communicate
your orders. What if these little slip-ups keep happening? Do you know how
easy it would be to turn a little faux pas into a national-security
nightmare?

"Your
aides say that you don’t (can’t?) read the briefing papers they give
you, and that you ask them to read them for you or to you."

"Please
, don’t take any of this personally. Perhaps it’s a learning disability.
Some sixty million Americans have learning disabilities".

Perhaps
you think Cuba's Commander-in-Chief was wasting the time of the hundreds of thousands present,
analyzing the psychological and emotional condition of the Commander-in-Chief of
the other side? I don't think so, but perhaps you do. The Militant's
tender concern for poor George W. Bush, defending Bush against the charge that
Bush is "stupid", was touching.

It would have been
better had The Militant taken note of, and protested, the vicious campaign against Michael Moore by
those right-wing Cuban extremists in Miami regarding Fahrenheit 9/11
and Moore's
support for returning Elian to his father in Cuba. Check this out:
http://www.walterlippmann.com/klw-elian.html

The Militant should have defended Moore against the Miami right,
instead of
defending George W. Bush against Michael Moore.
As with Elian, The Militant ended up on the other side.

Anyway, here are a few of
the more
thoughtful and better-argued commentaries about Fahrenheit 9/11. There are many
others, of course. Some of the
comments are good, some not, but they all contribute in one way or another to
helping people to reflect on the movie. They take up things which both were and
weren't in the movie, but in a
more constructive, and less clumsy way, in my opinion. Check them out.

In
Miami, they are fiercely attacking Michael Moore, the famous movie director of Fahrenheit
9/11.

The
issue came to light last Friday and Saturday in three articles published in the
newspaper El Nuevo Herald written by right wing Cubans. Groups from that
tendency have mobilized themselves in Miami and are using radio, internet and
email to launch a barrage of insults against Moore.

Why
such boisterous rhetoric? It stems from articles written by Moore in 1997 and
2000, where he characterized elements of the political criminal underground in
Florida who, in the supposed name of freedom for Cuba, have committed atrocities
against that country for the last 45 years.

In
those articles, the North American film director and writer denounced the nutty
bunch of people who have controlled the U.S. foreign policy regarding the
island, "many of them Batista supporters".

He
added that "One of the big bonuses to come out of our funding of these
Cuban exiles was the help they gave us in bringing illegal drugs into the
States, destroying families and whole sections of our cities." Moore adds:
"these Cuban exiles, for all their chest-thumping and terrorism, are really
just a bunch of wimps," always present and involved in events like
"Kennedy assassination, Watergate, IranContra, and our drug abuse
epidemic".

Two
examples suffice to show the fragility of their attempts to rebut Moore. Let's
see:

One of
the commentators of the El Nuevo Herald, Arming González, tries to
respond to the above quotes and asks in an offended tone what Moore would say on
the subject of "the honorable veterans of Brigade 2506". As everyone
knows, in April 1961, Brigade 2506 carried out the invasion of Girón where it
was defeated in less than 72 hours after being totally supported by the U.S.
Government, as President Kennedy later admitted.

Another
journalist who attempts to respond is Alexander Armengol, who says that Moore
"has lied" when judging the actions of the extreme right-wing
factions.

Thus
they continue losing credibility in public opinion regarding Moore. Armengol
himself once explained that the "exiles" certainly do not represent
the community of Cuban origin as a whole.

That is
what he wrote in an article published in the El Nuevo Herald on October
14, 1998 under the title "Independent Journalists: Recipe for publishing in
Miami". According to what Armengol said in that article, when they receive
writings from Havana "it does not matter that the articles are of quality
or that what they describe is true or false", because they will always find
"their defenders in Miami".

He
characterized this activity as "writing pages of propaganda with the
illusion of pleasing the eyes and ears of Miami, and that neither reflect the
reality of Cuba nor comply with the basic rules of journalism". He added
that the information fabricated in the Island by these so-called reporters
"tries to flatter us, to validate our positions", and at the same time
offers "distorted visions of the past, as well as the future of Cuba".

In the
middle of such a mess, very well described by Alexander Armengol, can someone
rebut the comments made by Michael Moore with respect to the behavior of those
bands?

Nobody.
And much less when one remembers the enormous electoral fraud committed in
Florida in 2000 with the active and enthusiastic participation of those who the
film director describes, or the ample involvement of and their ties to drug
trafficking scandals.

For
that reason, now that they are being exposed by the author of Fahrenheit
9/11, they prefer to use their favorite methods, a noisy campaign to try
to diminish his prestige and above all, blackmail and threats.

"And
we must be very clear with both members of the Democratic presidential ticket
that only when Michael Moore is expelled" from the campaign will the wound
opened in the heart of the Cuban exile begin to heal, says one of the articles
in El Nuevo Herald.

Such is
the language of that gangsterish world. How well they show once again that they
are people who are alienated from the thought and actions of the clear majority
of the community of Cuban origin living in the United States.

Havana,
August 20 (AIN) The campaign to re-elect George W. Bush was dealt a new blow
with the announcement that Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11
will be sold on video and DVD formats in October, the month before the US
presidential elections.

The new
edition of the documentary that reveals close connections between the Bush and
Bin Laden families is a continuation of Michael Moore’s battle to get voters
to learn the truth about the current US administration.

The
film shows the atrocities committed by US troops in Iraq and gives viewers an
inside look at Bush as president, including his untreated alcohol problem.

The
renowned US filmmaker publicly stated his intentions to help dethrone Bush by
showing his unfitness to govern the country with his prejudice, inconsistency,
and loyalty to corporations that contribute to financing his political campaign.

Fahrenheit
9/11 has already brought in a record 115 million dollars for a
documentary, despite having been placed with free Internet access.

The
video and DVD edition for home viewing will include dramatic footage that had to
be edited as a condition for the film’s exhibition at movie theatres. It
includes scenes at the entrance to the Abu Ghraib prison, which led to seven US
soldiers being accused of abuses and torturing prisoners.

The
documentary includes a glimpse of the reality of US society and the political
and economic conditions generated by the huge social injustices in the most
powerful country in the world.

Moore’s
film Bowling for Columbine, which denounces the arms race,
violence and commercial interests that promote the lifestyle in the United
States, received an Oscar for best documentary in 2003.

Earlier
this year, Fahrenheit 9/11 won the top award during the
prestigious Cannes International Film Festival and many believe that he will
obtain his second Oscar for the film.

Paris, May 18
(Prensa Latina) When American
science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury wrote his masterpiece "Fahrenheit
451", he never suspected his title was to be borrowed by a film director to
analyze the outcomes of one the most influential events in US contemporary
history.

Now Michael Moore, who won an Oscar Award for his
historical "Bowling for Columbine", unveiled at Cannes Film Festival
another masterpiece, no less than Bradbury´s: "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Controversial, infuriating and decidedly
anti-war, the film portraits Moore´s vision of post 9/11 world, received a
sustained applause at Cannes and gave the Festival the first whiff of genuine
scandal, welcomed as a juicy dish for the 4000 journalists covering the
Festival, most of them scrabbling to claim seats at the press screening.

According to reviewers like Hugh Jeffries, from
UK Herald, the audience chortled seeing the images of the Bushites at the US
government portrayed as cowboys, riding into Iraq to the theme tune from the TV
show "Bonanza."

Tony Blair is portrayed as their Stetson-wearing
sidekick, bowlegged and clad in full Western gear with six-guns at his hip,
jumping up and down like a puppet. But Moore confessed that he let Blair off
lightly as he was mainly aiming "to fix" what was happening in
Washington. "The problem is in the White House, and not at No.10 Downing
Street."

However, the director admitted that "what
has always depressed me about Tony Blair is that he knows better. At least, one
thing you can say about Blair is that he's smart. What's he doing
hanging out with a guy like George W. Bush?"

Perhaps the answer is not in the film, but in
contemporary history, which shows that during the last decades, Anglo-American
interests have entangled so much around the world, converting the once
"Queen of the Seas" British Empire in a follower and supporter of
Washington policies. It happened at the Gulf War, at Afghanistan and now again
at Iraq.

Maybe that's why Moore used Bradbury´s
title -- Fahrenheit 451, the temperature at which paper burns in an anti-utopian
future society where TV has substituted writing and firefighters had reversed
their role, pursuing and burning forbidden books, instead of extinguishing
fires.

The plot of the film takes the temperature from
another patient: the post-September 11 America, as well as revealing the
extensive business links between the families of George W. Bush and Osama Bin
Laden, and seeking out the connections between the 2001 terrorist attacks and
the war in Iraq.

According to reviews, Fahrenheit 9/11 is a
"baggy, eccentric partisan animal, which makes its many points with broad
strokes and even broader humor, an audacious, angry moving piece of work, the
boldness and relevance of which few could deny."

Moore structured his film with information,
statistics, interviews, news clips and harrowing unseen footage from inside
Iraq, beginning by querying, in Moore's trademark style, the virtual coup
d'etat whereby the current American president took power. Then he moves
into more subversive territory, the friendly relationship between the oil-rich
Saudi Arabian elite and the Bush clan, and questioning how much effort has
really gone into the search for Osama Bin Laden.

His humor is infectious, but deadly - says Hannah
McGill, from the Herald (UK) - he never misses an opportunity to mock Bush's
buffoonish public persona, but his concerns are real, as becomes painfully
evident when he shows graphic footage of Iraqi civilian casualties, as well as
the first video material showing the humiliation and abuse of Iraqis by American
soldiers.

Furthermore, Moore's extended interview with
the innocently patriotic but wholly betrayed mother of a dead American soldier,
concludes noting that it is America's have-nots who are most ready to step
into the line of fire in its defense. "All that they ask in return is that
we never send them into harm's way unless it's absolutely
necessary," he states. "Will they ever trust us again?"

Maybe this provocative approach has won the film
lots of distribution problems, since Mel Gibson's Icon pictures, the
original financiers, had dropped the project, suggesting that the actor was
pressured by the White House, which Icon denies. The financing was taken over by
Harvey Weinstein's Miramax, owned by Disney, but now the studio is refusing
to handle the distribution, fearing that the film, with its liberal focus and
negative portrayal of Bush might affect his re-election run in November.

On account of these obstacles, it may be that one
of the most provocative pieces of documentary film of this new millennium could
be hidden from the public, until the American election race will be finished.
But if Bush wins, it is unlikely that it ever hits America's screens.

The case explains better than the film itself why
Fahrenheit 9/11 is - in Moore's own words -- about the temperature at which
freedom burns.

FAHRENHEIT 9/11Alter widely covering the political importance of
the film by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11, and since it is being shown in the
main movie and video theaters in Havana, there are some points still to be
mentioned about its artistic conception.

Perhaps you have followed this work and the
writings of Michael Moore and have no doubts as to the political convictions and
theories of the filmmaker, extolled in the documentary and that do not differ
with the millions of honest human beings in our world. The White House is run by
a mediocre individual who does not waver to lie and manipulate to keep himself
in his job and promote his interests.

This is clear but it is also an artistic endeavor
that has to be analyzed, not so much for those already convinced of its value
but for those on the opposite side, or who doubt, or are confused by the
TV-directed information that they receive daily.

"Propaganda!" the neo-conservatives
shout with the same hatred they use when they say "nigger". It is true
that Moore's film doesn't hold back any punches and tries to demonstrate without
slipping on a false objectivity proposed by those writers who do not want to
seem committed (at least once in a while) as if being committed is a greater
sin.

Moore has explained his intentions clearly from
the beginning, his intentions to help dethrone the illegal president of his
country. But his battlefield relies on an artistic expression, free from
demagoguery. Proving the guilt of a president and the men and women around him
Fahrenheit 9/11 deals with them, one by one, through a skilful structure towards
a dramatic climax that soon becomes an interest and challenge for the spectator.

Moore relies on a reflexive manner using the most
diverse mechanisms of communication: irony, humor, shattering exclamations,
propositions to follow lines of analysis from the political investigation he
reveals, exposes and demonstrates a field mined with contradictions of the
present administration. He achieves this through a skilful combination of words
and images. When he speculates, he does so very reasonably, as if trying to get
into the mind of President Bush when he receives the news of the attacks of
September 11 and is obviously dumbfounded for a long while. There are neither
high sounding nor offending adjectives by Moore in trying to demonstrate the
limitations and undertones of the man he has in the bull's eye. There, on the
screen, are the words and images of the almighty President in his capacity of
muddling.

The election of 2000 and the back-slap by Florida
(that US films will one day treat after the President is just a bad memory), the
business of Daddy Bush with the Bin Laden family, the political benefits
obtained after September 11, 2001, the social backgrounds of the US soldiers who
die in Iraq and topped by the sinister maneuvers that are still to come.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is as important for what it
reveals as the ghosts it implants in the minds of the unbelievers.

Judging by the figures reported last week, the
film has reached 100 million dollars in the United States, an unimaginable sum
for a documentary. It has also been widely viewed and applauded in Europe.

But perhaps the most stimulating news for the
artist, Michael Moore, is that, contrary to what was expected and at the
beginning, advocated by his followers, Republican leaders have publicly
acknowledged that many of their party followers did not stay at home in answer
to the "provocative propaganda" but are paying to view the film and
not only to boo at it.

On Tuesday the Cuban TV showed images in which
the audience of the Cannes Festival appeared standing and cheering a smiling
Michael Moore, after the presentation of his last film, Fahrenheit 9/11. The
director could also be seen outside receiving cheering from many people, one of
them held a placard where it read: "Michael Moore for US president".

MICHAEL MOORE IN CANNES

Cannes is considered the most glamorous of all
International Cinema Festivals and the most famous movie stars go to it, always
chased by hundreds of photographers and journalists ready to speak about the
quality of films, the new affairs or the designers more represented in the
clothes of the luminaries. It is a wide range of interests that goes from the
most serious topics to the frivolities that nourish the magazines of the heart.
This year, how ever, and according to the present times, Cannes has given a
spectacular back up to an artist that has nothing to do with glamour and a topic
that is hard to take away from any table.

A day before the premiere of
Fahrenheit 9/11,
already, when it was presented for the press and received an unusual general
back up, a journalist wondered if the enthusiasm, the cheering -disregarding the
indubitable quality of the film- were not due also to the fact that most of
professionals present there shared Moore's aversion for president George Bush
and his imperialist policy.

After seeing
Fahrenheit 9/11, the keyboards have
not hesitated in praising it. Here is an example: "Moore made the Festival
burst with the two hours of a documentary-pamphlet-reportage film against
'George from Arabia', whom he turns into dust with an irresistible mix of irony,
investigation and a huge and intelligent capacity of communication."

Fahrenheit
9/11, constitutes a critique to
Washington's decision to go to a war against Iraq after September 11th, 2001. As
always, Moore was outspoken and he accused the White House of trying to hinder
the realization of his film. "Fahrenheit 9/11 - he said - is the temperature
to which freedom and democracy melt". Not few agree on the strength of the
images taken in Iraq, among which there are children murdered by the invaders.

And, of course, an esthetical device that has become an unappealable truth in
the hands of this film maker could not be missing, the contrast: From a scene of
a family sad for the sorrow of a child "dead in combat", it goes to
hall where several executives speak about the investments they will make in
Iraq. And from Bush's words promising revenge, it goes to the revelations on the
business between the president's family and Osama bin Laden's family.

From the beginning to the end, Bush and his
journey of dullness, in the gibbet.

When some days ago Disney House refused to
distribute Fahrenheit 9/11 alleging they intended to keep impartial in view of
the presidential elections of November, Moore accused them publicly of boycott
and of violating a contract. But now in Cannes, the winner of an Oscar for
Bowling for Columbine, did not hesitate in agreeing with them some how and
making evident his intentions as an artist identified with his historical time:
"It is very likely that, after seeing it, North Americans will know whom
not to vote on the elections".
=========================================

Fahrenheit
9/11 Success
set Social Agendas as Well

New
York, Jun 30 (Prensa Latina) Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit
9/11" has already set a box-office record, and on Monday night, it set a
few social agendas as well, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

According
to the US publication, the political action committee MoveOn.org organized
thousands of parties linked to the release of the film. The polemic film has
aroused heated arguments throughout the country on Bush administration's Iraq
and terrorism policies.

As of
Monday evening, according to online registrations provided by MoveOn, that
organization had recruited more than 4,000 supporters to give parties, with at
least one in all 50 states and Washington.

The
highlight was an 8 p.m. conference call and question-and-answer session with Mr.
Moore.

"These
parties are to celebrate the film's success," said Eli Pariser, 23,
the executive director of MoveOn, a liberal organization that advocates
grass-roots involvement in politics.

"But
they are also to take the momentum gathered around the movie and direct it
towards activities that will have a concrete effect on the election,"
Pariser stated.

During
Mr. Moore's promised Q&A session, broadcast on the Internet, he asked
everyone to "adopt five nonvoters and bring them to the polls."

The
MoveOn parties took place throughout Monday evening in almost every conceivable
manner and function across the United States, including at exclusive celebrity
events, clubs, bars and homes.

About
20 celebrities, including the actresses Edie Falco and Rose McGowan, and the
comedian David Cross were engulfed by a news media feeding frenzy, as television
and film crews mingled in the crowd and notebooks were as common an accessory as
plastic cups of wine.

"Going
to a party?" Mr. Cross said. "That's the weakest political
statement you can make." Still, he added, "These parties might foster
some discourse and some passion, and that would be really great."

Eric
Demby, 32, the speechwriter for the Brooklyn borough president, Marty Markowitz,
is beginning a newsletter called Involver, at involver04.org, to alert
subscribers to what he called "politically relevant cultural events."

He met
Jennifer Harmer, 26, who belongs to a group called Axis of Eve, which seeks to
end the Bush presidency with a pro-sex message. For fund-raising purposes it
sells women's underwear marked with raunchy slogans using the
president's surname.

Now Mr.
Demby says he will promote Ms. Harmer's efforts through Involver.

At
another party at the Bubble Lounge bar in TriBeCa, two friends, Paula Rogovin,
56, and Susanne Markan, 61, said they had protested against the Vietnam War.

"There
was a turning point back then, where you could just feel the country had had
enough," Ms. Markan said. "That's what these parties are about to
me, is seeing that turning point today," she concluded.

An alternative view of
Fahrenheit 9/11and an
antidote to so much of the knee-jerk praise that has been so thoroughly
circulated on our listserves. I think we should print another point of view that
will resonate with many, including myself, who forked over our money and were
caught up in the hype.

BY MARTÍN KOPPEL
Liberals and radicals have touted Fahrenheit 9/11, the latest film by
Michael Moore, as an effective exposé of the “truth” about the Bush
administration, from the outcome of the 2000 elections to its role in the
U.S.-led war against Iraq. On his web site, michaelmoore.com, the
filmmaker makes the modest claim that it is “perhaps the most thoroughly
researched and vetted documentary of our time.”

Telling the truth, however, is not what guided
Moore. The so-called documentary is simply a propaganda piece aimed at getting
out the vote to “dump Bush” and to push the Democrats into the White House.
It is not “antiwar” but a chauvinist, pro-American imperialist screed.

Moore has been fervently hustling votes for the
Democrats in the 2004 race, and his film is part of that campaign. Asked by USA
Today whether his anti-Bush movie is aimed at galvanizing the “choir” of
faithful Democrats, Moore replied, “The choir needs a wake-up call. A large
part of the choir isn’t energized by John Kerry and is not voting.”

On the opening night of the Democratic Party
national convention, Moore spoke at a Boston forum with ex-presidential
contender Howard Dean. Proclaiming himself a “patriot” and the Republicans
as “hatriots,” he promised that “Kerry will not invade a country like
George W. Bush did.” Why did the senator vote for the war on Iraq? “John
Kerry did what 70-80 percent of our fellow Americans did. He believed” the
White House’s arguments for going to war, but “now” he knows they were
lies, Moore unabashedly asserted. Kerry just demolished this argument, saying he
would have voted for the invasion anyway. The filmmaker also denounced Ralph
Nader for running, saying that “the Republicans do love Ralph.”

The main argument in Fahrenheit 9/11 is
that the Bush White House has been incompetent in using the FBI and other cop
agencies to “fight terrorism,” failing to prevent the attacks on the World
Trade Center and Pentagon. It claims the administration diverted attention to a
war against Iraq instead of going after the real danger to “America”: Osama
bin Laden and al-Qaeda. This is also the main theme of the Kerry campaign.

The movie’s “documentation” relies heavily
on statements made by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, the
architect of the Clinton administration’s 1998 bombing attacks on Sudan and
Afghanistan.

In the film, narrator Moore complains that prior
to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, “Bush cut antiterrorist funding for the
FBI.” He interviews a state trooper in Oregon who says that, because of
federal budget cuts, he is the only one protecting the coast of that state
against any terrorist threat.

Moore reaches rock bottom in scenes on ‘Coalition of the Willing’
The film reaches rock bottom with its mocking portrayal of several nations whose
governments were part of the “Coalition of the Willing” in the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq. Apart from falsifying by omission—it leaves out three
imperialist powers in the coalition: the British, Italian, and Australian
governments—the film makes fun of Costa Rica and Palau (people in “quaint”
costumes), Rumania (portrayed as Dracula), Iceland (depicted as Vikings) and the
Netherlands (smokers in a hashish den). As Morocco is mentioned, the film
flashes a shot of running monkeys, as the narrator says that the Moroccan
government offered 2,000 monkeys for detonating land mines. The viewers are
supposed to howl with laughter at this pro-American chauvinist “humor.”
While some do, I noticed that not everyone in the theater I was in found it
funny.

Equally grotesque is Moore’s anti-Saudi
chauvinism. In arguing that Bush decided to invade Iraq to deflect attention
from a “Saudi connection” in 9/11, he quotes “experts” alleging that
wealthy Saudi businessmen “own 7 percent of America.” The film indignantly
“reveals” that U.S. officials supposedly allowed 142 Saudi citizens to leave
the United States after Sept. 11, 2001, while airports were shut down, and
quotes a retired FBI agent insisting that the political police should have
thoroughly interrogated Saudi immigrants. According to Moore, all members of the
Bin Laden family should have been regarded as “terrorist suspects.” In fact,
the film has not a word of criticism of the U.S. government’s post-9/11
dragnets against immigrants from the Middle East, South Asia, and
elsewhere—only of the FBI spying on a middle-class pacifist group in
California.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a pro-war film. It
approves of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, and boosts the arguments of those
calling for aggressive U.S. measures against Saudi Arabia. The last section
focuses on the plight of U.S. soldiers sent to Iraq—but not to oppose sending
U.S. troops into imperialist wars: just this one. Moore says, “Don’t send
them into harm’s way unless it’s absolutely necessary”—the position of
all Democratic and Republican politicians, whose disagreements are simply
tactical ones about which wars are necessary and how they should be conducted to
protect and advance the interests of U.S. imperialism.

To bolster the case for replacing Bush with a
Democrat, Moore resorts to various conspiracy theories, that is, to the view
that certain major events in U.S. politics were determined not by the normal
functioning of bourgeois politics but by secret plots by a few individuals or
groups. One is the fraudulent argument that Bush “stole” the elections. The
film makes the absurd claim that decisive factors in the outcome were that 1) on
election night, Bush’s cousin John Ellis was in charge of the decision desk at
Fox News, the first network that called Florida for Bush, and 2) his brother Jeb
Bush was the governor of Florida.

Fahrenheit 9/11 also peddles the crank
view that U.S. imperialism’s foreign policy in the Middle East has been
determined by a special business relationship between the Bush family and a
“foreign power,” in this case the Saudi royal family. The film draws heavily
on a book by Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret
Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties. The title of
that book, like the movie, conveniently elevates the role of the wealthy Bush
family above the other dynasties that make up the U.S. ruling class, such as the
Rockefeller, Dupont, Forbes, and Heinz families.

Moore’s movie also relies on low-level
personalized attacks on Bush, including the false assertion that Bush is
“stupid.” His crude tone is of a piece with the coarsening discourse of
bourgeois politics, which was seen most recently around the edges of the
Democratic convention.

NEW
YORK — Tonight, it's show time for
George W. Bush, and I can't wait to
hear what he has to tell the
Republican convention.

It
has been a pretty thrilling week so
far, my favorite moment by far being
the rebellious Bush twins who, in
just a few short minutes, delivered
on their promise to issue
"payback" to their parents
and all authority in general.

They
revealed their parents' pet name for
each other: "Bushie" or
"Bushy" — no spelling
was provided. They seemed to have
embarrassed their grandmother with a
joke about the TV show Sex and the
City as a place to have sex. And
they claimed to have seen their
boogieing parents "shake it
like a Polaroid picture."
That's one picture that took the
rest of the night for me to shake
out of my head.

Nonetheless,
I loved the Bush daughters: They
were funny, sassy and free spirits.
Back in 1999, they told their father
in no uncertain terms that they did
not want him to run for president.
They wanted their dad at home, they
wanted their privacy, and they
wanted to go to college in peace. He
chose to ignore their pleas — and
I guess Tuesday night was their way
of saying, "Thanks, Dad."

And
thank him they should. He and Laura
have obviously done a good job
raising two bright, independent
women. He made their privacy a top
priority and did what he could to
protect them. They clearly love
their parents and, when you see that
happen, you know the Bushes did
something right in their home. For
that, they should be commended.

Other
fathers and mothers who loved their
daughters and sons across America
can no longer celebrate with them.
That's because their children are
dead on the streets and roads of
Iraq, sent there by Mr. Bush to
"defend" America.

This
week, in an appearance leading up to
his arrival here Wednesday night,
Bush acknowledged he had
miscalculated what would happen in
Iraq after he invaded it. He had
thought it was going to be much
easier. It turned out to be much,
much worse.

That
must be some comfort to the parents
of nearly 1,000 brave soldiers now
dead because of his
"miscalculation." If I
made a miscalculation and ran over a
child on the street, what do you
think would happen to me? Do you
think the cops would simply say,
"Hey, Mr. Moore, you did your
best driving down this street, you
made a miscalculation, the kid is
dead, but you are trying to save the
world, so be on your way?"
Something tells me this is not what
would happen. What I don't get is
that Mr. Bush makes his mistake and
thinks he has a right to continue in
his job.

Let's
hope he isn't getting his
inspiration from Richard Nixon, the
same man Arnold Schwarzenegger
hailed Tuesday night as his reason
for becoming a Republican. You have
to give Arnold an award for guts. He
must be the first Republican
convention speaker to mention Nixon
since he resigned. Nixon snuck into
office in 1968 with his secret plan
to end the Vietnam War. Another
miscalculation: The war continued
for years, and thousands more died.

I
would love to hear Bush apologize
tonight to the parents and loved
ones of those who have died in Iraq.
I would like to hear him say he
knows what it means to love your
children and that he, in good
conscience, cannot send any more
children to their deaths.

I
would like to hear him say tonight,
"I'm sorry. There never were
weapons of mass destruction and
there never was a connection between
Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There was
no imminent threat, our lives were
not in danger, no missiles were
going to hit Cleveland. Because of
our desire to get our hands on the
second largest supply of oil in the
world, we sacrificed a thousand of
your sons and daughters. For this,
we are greatly sorry."

I
guess a boy can dream.

The
other thing I would like to hear
tonight is: Why haven't you caught
Osama bin Laden? You've had three
years to find him. The man killed
nearly 3,000 people here on our
soil.

Maybe
Bush has no worse explanation than
he just hasn't been able to do it.
Well, if your town's dogcatcher
couldn't catch a wild dog that has
been on the loose biting people for
three years, what would be the
dogcatcher's chances for
re-election? Not good.

And
so it should be for Bush.

Unless
he has the answers tonight. Perhaps
he has a reason or can accept
responsibility for his actions and
promise to send no one else's child
off to die for a cause that has
nothing to do with the defense of
this country.

If
he takes a moment to look into his
daughters' eyes tonight, he will
know the answer and give the
greatest speech of his life.

Political
conventions have become predictable
rituals, four-day cheerleading
sessions for both parties. So USA
TODAY is offering readers an
alternative perspective. Liberal
filmmaker Michael Moore, director of
Fahrenheit 9/11, is writing daily
from the Republican convention in
New York. A month ago, conservative
National Review columnist Jonah
Goldberg weighed in from the
Democratic convention.

It is
already known that Michael Moore has made a strong hit with Fahrenheit 9/11.
But a film festival where the image of the voluminous filmmaker becomes a
target instead of the central figure to applaud, is unthinkable.

Four
words introduce you to the roots of this American Film Renaissance in Dallas:
"To rescue traditional values in the United States." On qualifying
the 21 works in the Festival, two more words by the organizers shamelessly
bring out the nature of these roots, all films are "conservative and
patriotic."

Without
clarifying where the money is coming from to celebrate this neo-conservative
event, a few weeks before the presidential elections, and just one day before
the vote's in about Farenheit 9/11 being shown on television, Jim Hubbard,
which is in the film festival organizing committee, states that the films in
this festival will show "pride, humbleness, appreciation for this great
nation." Since Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," these attributes
represent what's most rotten and ultra-conservative in U.S. filmmaking.

But
Jim Hubbard, and all those behind him, are insulted by films like Farenheit
911. Big Brain Bush and others have lately shown that ruling a powerful
country does not necessarily mean that intelligence is kicking doors down.
"For a long time - Hubbard angrily says - the film industry has used its
influence to make films showing the world laughing at patriotism, faith and
traditional U.S. values."

And
to erase any doubts about the goals of the American Film Renaissance, he
shoots a cannon ball to the most popular target: "United States is a home
and not a nation of idiots, as Michael Moore says!"

Among
the films trying to prove the bad intentions of filmmakers criticizing the
system and its President, we find "Michael Moore Hates America,"
and "Michael and Me." The first one tries to respond to
"Farenheit 9/11," it does not disclaim the evidence, which is
hard to do, but it rather talks about the "evil" and
"anti-patriotic" mind of the filmmaker, morally defending at the
same time Bush's "war on terror."

And
"Michael and Me," after Moore's "Roger and Me,"
goes back to an old pretext, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The right to bear arms is interpreted by the powerful National Rifle
Association- also attacked by "Bowling for Columbine" - as it
behooves them, who profit from violence and death. (Starting Monday, after
shaking off a bothersome legal problem, U.S. stores can sell the most
attractive assault weapons - semi-automatic weapons - for any citizen needing
to defend himself, (which has already made crime reporters get their
typewriters ready).

You
can think about the applause, among flags and popcorn, from an audience
supporting this so-called Renaissance Festival in Dallas. A festival that is
interested in affirming, from the financial shadows, values which are pro-war,
macho, racist and pseudo-patriotic.

It is
hard to see, though, that they would see the ethical value for those who are
rational, of an insulted applause.